Dr Phil -"Biochemist Addresses The Genetic Consequences Of Having Children With A Blood Relative"

Recommended Posts

Ouch. It looks like our friends from Utah got blindsided on the Dr. Phil show. It appears that Dr. Phil found a yahoo to mislead the viewers by using stats that represented all consanguineous marriages (incl father/daughter incest). All of the stats were off the wall. It certainly didn't have anything to do with cousins.

Dr. Phil warned them to be wary of websites like "cousins-r-us" LOL. I say be wary of talk shows.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Oh so this does includes all forms of consanguineous marriages? How did you find this out? When I seen this it worried me and I didn’t understand where they got their info. Yeah I hate how he wants to try to make it a joke about where they get their facts and he pulls some bs like this. Why is this guy called a Dr? Is he suppose to help people and have a healthy debate? It just seems he attacks these people and says what he can to get a laugh.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My point is based upon two things. The title of the powerpoint presentation is titled, "Consanguineous Marriage Complications." These stats are made up. I've read every study out there. Cousins actually have a lower chance of miscarriages than the general population. I know bs stats when I see them.

Dr Phil appeared to be hungover or stoned. Part of his brand image is being an a$$ hole.

Now I'm furious about them claiming that we cherry pick our data. Up yours Dr Phil!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

the stats aren't made up, they're just irrelevant to western civilization where cousin marriage accounts for about 1 out of 1000 marriages. they look very similar to what i can remember alan bittles publishing about the complications in middle-eastern and third world countries where pre-arranged marriages between first cousins is common, even through multiple generations.

they did get blindsided. and i've reached out to them on here by PM, and on FB messenger but they haven't responded to me. i think they may be upset with me because i never did connect with the producer of the show, and maybe because they got very little interaction with anyone here when they posted. or maybe i'm just imagining it because i feel guilty that i wasn't able to help them through the whole ordeal. and i DO feel guilty. i feel like i totally dropped the ball on this one. i dropped the ball on them.

as for dr. phil, i never have liked him. he's just an oprah-wanna-be. and an oprah-prodigee. she did "raise" and "groom" him into what he is now. he's a smart man. he could have gotten a true expert in the field of genetics on there, instead of someone with such an impressive list of credentials that have little or nothing to do with the the human genome. why didn't he reach out to a genetic expert? alan bittles maybe? or robin bennet? or whoever the current president of the NSGC? instead he brought on some pretty face who has helped develop oncology and neurology treatments and preventions. not once did anyone even bring up the research published in JAMA. dr. phil chose someone who would push HIS agenda, HIS bias, without any data or research relevant to north america.

one thing you can count on though, is this is going to start a couple of years of media circus. every talk show on tv will be wanting to cover the subject. the good news is that so will a lot of legitimate, reputable media outlets. i'm glad you turned off guest posting.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Would you please share your footnotes for the stats that you presented on the Dr. Phil show? I have serious questions as to the validity or applicability of your stats as it relates to first cousin marriages. The powerpoint title doesn't mention cousins specifically, so you can where one may be confused as to the applicability of the stats.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

they﻿ look very similar to what i can remember alan bittles publishing﻿﻿ about the complications in middle-eastern and third world countries where pre-arranged marriages between first cousins ﻿is common, even through multiple generations.

You have put forth this claim for years now and I still can't verify it. Ottenheimer scoffed at the idea and stated that cousins seem to have more children than unrelated couples. She could have got her stats from those British Pakistanis which had big problems.

btw Dr. Dena is called "[sic] brain dead moron" by Trump "trolls" per her twitter account. Dr. Phil forgot to mention that she is a crackpot failed politician as is her husband who beat his first wife and cheated on her with the lovely Dr. Dena.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dang! I just recognized that the Powerpoint states that hemophilia is increased! N o W a y y y y can she be that stupid, can she? Well she is a politician. Does anyone here believe ANY statistic uttered from a politician?

Hemophilia has nothing to do with cousin marriages; it is a sex-linked disorder.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LOL i didn't really read the powerpoint, just listened to the clip. you're right about that, hemophilia is chromosomal, and would not be affected regardless of biological relation or lack thereof of the parents.

she may be an expert in many things, but this topic is not one of them. the congenital anomalies bullet list, aside from her egregious error about hemophilia, does look pretty close to accurate for this part of the world though. but that's the part that was downplayed so they could make everything else sound so much scarier.

and i REALLY would like to know where the heck she's getting the idea that mood disorders and schizophrenia are so much higher among children of cousins. really? REALLY? compared to... ?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am putting this here for comments. It is longed believed that "generations" of cousin marriages exponentially cause birth defects. It sounds reasonable but I don't see any evidence for it. Here is a quote from Dr. Brittles:

Quote

In a study based on combined data from 38 populations in eastern and southern Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and South America, with average coefficient of inbreeding (a ) values ranging from 0.0005 to 0.0370, mean excess mortality at the first cousin level was 4.4% (Bittles and Neel 1994). This estimate appears to be valid for all of the large human populations so far examined. However, consanguinity interacts with a range of sociodemographic variables in determining rates of mortality during infancy and early childhood. When these influences were simultaneously analyzed using data collected retrospectively as part of the 1990/91 Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey, the major determinants of early death were maternal illiteracy, maternal age at birth of less than 20 years, and a birth interval of less than 18 months. But, even after controlling for these factors, first cousin progeny had statistically significant odds ratios for neonatal, postneonatal, and infant mortality of 1.36, 1.28, and 1.32, respectively (Grant and Bittles 1997).

He finds a 4.4% increased risk for the offspring of cousins. I think the NSOGC found an increased risk of 1.6 - 2.7 % for North American cousin couples. There does appear to be a difference but it could be accounted for by poverty and many other factors that are not unique to cousins.

LadyC, a closer look at the " congenital anomalies bullet list " shows that cousins have three times the risk of non-cousins. I think that is way out there. Given the fact that the Powerpoint doesn't mention cousins and it erroneously lists hemophilia, the whole darn thing is unmitigated BS.

For once anyway, the Trump supporters are exactly right. Dr. Dena is a "brain dead moron!" I think she deserves her very own cc.com page. Who knows? It could happen if I get bored enough.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah, my math ain't so good and my memory is worse. I had to go look at our own info pages! The data we have shows a 1.5 to 3% higher risk, which at the outside would be a max risk of 5.4%, as oppose to her claim of 6.1 percent. I suppose they figured an exaggeration of only a half percent would be easy enoughonly a half percent would be easy enough to pull off. And they were right. It even rolled past me

I mostly hold dr. Phil responsible though. You can't tell me that he didn't intentionally look for someone who would support his bias. Any genetic counselor would have given accurate info. He chose to go with some person with lots of titles and no expertise in genetics instead.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Oh wonderful. looks like another Tyra blind side hit piece. From here on out, if I see a producer in here asking for "volunteers", I am going to reply to NOT be looking for victims here, and that they will be smacked with the banhammer if they ignore me. I am beyond sick of good people being used in these hit pieces for ratings. I'll not be a party to it, and I'll not allow our members here to be further abused by these scallywags.

If you are a producer, or from a production company, consider yourself warned........ the junk yard dog is back.....🐕

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Cousin couples do have a slightly higher risk of having children with genetic disorders from recessive traits...but I don't think those rates of disability are any more than, say, women giving birth when 40-45+ years in age. Are they going to outlaw women from having kids past a certain age too?

At any rate, I don't believe the stats presented on the show. They seem overblown and I've never seen such high numbers before for birth defects and the like so yeah, color me skeptical.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I was extemely unhappy with Dr.Phil. Long time fan here that no longer watches. In fact I make sure to put it on regular daytime tv to give someone else ratings lol. I feel like he has forgotten his purpose. Now its just about putting people down to get ratings instead of building people up and helping them. I dont think people go into coucling to tear people down. Really sad and it isnt just this couple. She was very manipulative with her wording and numbers. Also he had none of her family on there that accept them just the bitter lady who clearly always has to be right. Oh I wosh he had a genetic specialist on there to shut her arse down. Hopefully people are smart enough to do their own research. Yes using google because thats how we resesrch things these days!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

the thing is, he had the ability to have a genetic specialist on there, and he CHOSE instead to have someone who would give slanted and inaccurate information. that was not by accident. it was totally intentional.

When we got pregnant w him, we had already had 2 miscarriages. I thought I’d never get to have my dream of having children. I also want to say that I don’t believe my miscarriages were due to us being cousins. I had just gotten off the pill after being on it MANY, MANY years. Lost twins ([email protected] 8wks & the other @ 10wks). Lost another & then got pregnant w my rainbow baby. I didn’t tell any of my friends or family until almost 1/2 way through my pregnancy. I was worried about Down syndrome & possible other birth defects that are concerns for 1st cousins having babies, but I felt like the chances of my rainbow baby having @ least one of these was greater due to my age. I was 41 when I got pregnant w him & 42 when I had him on his due date. Besides his attitude (sometimes), he may have a slight stigmatism but he’s PERFECT!!